A bizarre run chase by Australia marred by awful tactics saw them lose their blockbuster match against India last night.
Fans who stayed up late to watch this contest were left befuddled by the absurd cricket that unfolded after Australia were set a huge chase of 353 by India.
Given Australia has a batting lineup packed with batsmen who score at a gentle pace, the only way they were likely to haul in such a mammoth total was by taking risks.
They needed to start by attacking India’s new ball bowlers in the first ten overs while the field was up. The obvious batsman to fill the role of chief aggressor was David Warner.
His opening partner Aaron Finch has struggled against India this year and prefers to start slowly before accelerating once set.
By comparison, Warner is one of the world’s most dynamic batsmen and just finished clattering these same Indian bowlers in the IPL, where he was the leading runscorer.
Surely, then, Warner would chance his arm early on to, at a minimum, stop the required run rate from ballooning. Nope. Not happening. Forget about it. Instead Warner creeped, crawled, plodded to 56 from 84 balls.
Now consider what that innings meant for his teammates. Because Warner scored at just four runs per over, the remainder of the Australian batsmen were effectively left needing to make 297 from 216 balls at a daunting run rate of 8.25 runs per over.
This wasn’t just a case of Warner being out of nick either. Even once he had been at the crease for well over an hour he was still regularly dead-batting deliveries at his toes with nary an intention of scampering even a single. Warner incredibly ate up 46 dot balls during his weird innings.
(Photo by Henry Browne/Getty Images)
When finally he showed some aggression and holed out to deep midwicket, Australia did something strange. Very strange. Needing 220 runs at a whopping 8.7 runs per over, they sent out accumulator Usman Khawaja to partner the accumulator who was already at the crease in Steve Smith.
At this stage Australia’s extremely slim chance of victory hinged on master blaster Glenn Maxwell coming to the crease at the fall of Warner’s wicket and going ballistic.
Maxwell knows how to bully the Indian bowlers. He has a career scoring rate of 7.7 runs per over against India in ODIs, and just over three months ago smashed 113no from 55 balls against them in a T20I.
But no, Australia instead sent out Khawaja, a fine ODI batsman but one with a career scoring rate of 4.96 runs per over.
The conservative pair of Smith and Khawaja would typically struggle to score at much more than six runs per over in tandem. Here they were being asked to travel at almost nine an over.
It wasn’t their fault, they simply had been miscast in a role Maxwell was born to play.
Late in the innings Maxwell and Carey managed to get after the Indian bowlers but they had been handed a near impossible task.
The peculiar occurrences in the first two-thirds of the innings had robbed them of a reasonable platform from which to launch.
Be thankful, many of you, that you were asleep while those earlier events were taking place. Because it was farcical and frustrating and you could chuck another f-word in front of both of those terms.
Australia long ago built a reputation as a cricket team which believes in the impossible, which continues to chase victory even when it seems to be out of reach.
This flattering perception was enhanced in their previous match when they fought back from a dire situation to beat the West Indies.
That victory was their eleventh on the trot in ODIs. They entered this massive match against India with form and confidence on their side.
The risk now is that last night’s odd, sheepish performance may erase much of that momentum. And in a World Cup, momentum is king.
(Photo by Henry Browne/Getty Images)
Earlier Australia produced one of their loosest bowling displays in some time. Great credit must be awarded to the Indian batting lineup who paced their innings beautifully and operated with an admirable mix of composure, aggression and innovation.
Shikhar Dhawan (117), Virat Kohli (82), Hardik Pandya (48 from 27 balls) and Rohit Sharma (57) all were impressive.
But that should not conceal the laboured efforts of several of the Australian bowlers. Particularly disappointing was leg spinner Adam Zampa (0-50 from six overs), who had bowled with confidence and clear strategies as Australia beat India on the road earlier this year.
Yesterday Zampa was off-kilter from the get-go. His first ball was a rank half tracker which was swatted for four by Rohit Sharma (57) and he followed that with a full toss. Across his six overs Zampa could find neither the correct length nor the appropriate trajectory.
He alternated between dragging deliveries down or floating them up. His poor display made it very hard for skipper Aaron Finch to execute set strategies.
Finch surely would have planned on Zampa bowling a long spell once he came on soon after the first Power Play but instead he had to drag him and then reintroduce his frontline quicks prematurely.
The other knock-on effect was that Finch had to give extra overs to all-rounders Marcus Stoinis (2-62 from seven overs) and Glenn Maxwell (0-45 from seven overs) who together went at 7.6 runs per over.
Stoinis picked up a couple of cheap late wickets as India went the slog but looked vulnerable throughout. Maxwell, meanwhile, began well before taking some tap later on.
Coulter-Nile (1-63 from 10 overs) had a horrible start but, to his credit, fought back well and should have had a second wicket, that of the dangerous Pandya. Instead wicketkeeper Alex Carey dropped a regulation edge from Pandya’s first ball faced.
That mistake probably ended up costing Australia 15-20 runs, pushing India from a very good score to a massive total.
It was left to Pat Cummins (1-55 from 10 overs) and Mitchell Starc (1-74 from 10 overs) to try to rectify Carey’s mistake.
Cummins again was excellent but Starc was wayward for most of the day and appeared to be missing the rhythm he had exhibited while taking five wickets against the West Indies.
Australia, of course, already had two wins in the bank, so last night’s loss was by no means a disaster in regards to qualifying for the semi-finals.
India are a fantastic ODI side, my favourites to win this World Cup, and they played very well last night. They deserved to win.
The focus on Australia’s curious tactics is not intended to obscure or downgrade India’s achievement. Rather it is to highlight one of the most perplexing passages of play by an Australian side in a long while.
The last time I felt this flummoxed by the Australian team, Cameron Bancroft was suffering from nasty chafing.
vikdodiya@gmail.com
Guest
I don't get your criticism on DW. when you say "Australia matched India’s run rate right up until the 43rd over.” means he played well and accordingly. yes Kumar's 2 vickets was the difference. Second thing is middle overs (India attacked NCM and others and AUS went defencive, ment no vickets) For last 10 odd overs ... India had enough quality attacking bats man
Peter Warrington
Guest
agree like in 3 Days of the Condor, I blame Turner
Peter Warrington
Guest
but finch khawaja smith maxwell and carey all went fast enough. just not long enough i wonder if announcing the Ashes squad now would take some pressure off, free people up to play for here and now?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I'd stick with Zampa for the moment because he offers much more of a wicket taking option than Lyon and wickets through the middle overs is just so crucial these days to stop teams from loading up for a massive finish. But I'd be playing both Zampa and Lyon against England, and maybe also against SA and NZ.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
India played it well from the start. They didn’t go stupid trying to get runs off Cummins and Starc. Starc came off after 3 overs, he only went for 8 runs. It is clear that Finch could see that India weren’t being baited and his main enforcer had to have his overs saved for later. Unfortunately for them, then the pie chuckers came on. Hate to say it, but Hazlewood should have been there. If Smith and Warner can be selected with no ODI form or games for a long time, how is it a problem for Hazlewood.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Another interesting thing. Carey has started doing pretty well with the bat, but at the same time, he's dropped some catches. He hasn't been exemplary with the gloves. Many before the WC were calling for Handscomb to take the gloves, those defending staying with Carey would highlight things like a dropped catch can cause lots more damage than the better batting could make up for. If Handscomb had been keeper and dropped those catches, I guarantee that people would be jumping up and down about how it's all because he's a "part-time keeper" and that we are therefore losing out by not having a proper keeper. But as seen here, even the "proper keeper" is still dropping these catches. Is there any reason to really believe Handscomb would have done any worse?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Basically, we can afford to cover 10 overs between Stoinis and Maxwell, even if they aren't the best, but we can't afford to have all the pressure released the moment the two opening bowlers are finished. We don't just have issues with the fifth bowler, but with the third, fourth and fifth bowlers. Can we keep hoping Zampa will come good, or do we need to give Lyon a go? Do we keep picking NCN because he can bat better than the alternatives, even though he offers little to no threat with the ball? We need to have a first change bowler and a spinner, who will keep the pressure on. Without that, we can't beat the better teams. Do we risk weakening the batting lineup, replace NCN with Behrendorff, open with him and Starc, with Cummins bowling first change to just take away that feeling that you get any relief once you get past the opening bowlers?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The funny thing about the chase is that Australia was pretty much right on par with India at the same point throughout. The difference is that they weren't able to put on the big finish India could. But also, they didn't have the advantage of playing against an attack that so significantly drops off in quality after the opening bowlers finish. I'm starting to agree that NCN and Zampa need to go. NCN has likely played his one big innings of the world cup. We desperately need more with the ball, even if we have to sacrifice a bit of batting to get it. While Cummins has been good with the new ball, I'd be temped to open with Behrendorf and bring in Cummins at first change, because having that attack suddenly you can no longer relax when the opening bowlers come off. Behrendorf will bowl a long spell up front, Cummins will come on after Starc. Lyon can seem to be a bit hit or miss at ODI level too, sometimes he does really well, but he's known to go the journey at times too. But I don't see we can stick with Zampa at the moment.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Maybe, I just think Khawaja is being ill treated - just as Finch was in the tests - playing in a position different from where his success comes from + it doesn't serve Australia that well either.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
Point well taken. But let us assume that bottom order has Jos Buttler in it. Will i fancy my chances to get 12 an over? I will . Let us assume again that bottom order has Dre Russ in it. Will i fancy my chances to get 12 an over? I will. Actually i believe he will get it within 8 overs. Similarly if bottom order has Maxwell in it. 115 from 10 is no big deal considering Australian bottom order is full of sloggers. To make it clear, i am not saying Maxwell will do it in every match. But as long as he is in, 115 from 10 overs is not a big deal. 12 runs per over in modern game is 2 boundary and 2 doubles. We scored 50+ in last 4 overs. Australia needed 150 runs from 13 overs with 7 wickets in hand. So very much possible. My point here is, Australia lost by 36 runs, what if Australia had 25 more balls to get it? Or even 20 balls? David Warner scored 56 from 84 deliveries creating 28 run-ball difference. Three vital factors that won us the match yesterday were 1) Finch run-out. If that partnership lasted another 5 overs, the game could have been over for us, Finch had really started to hit it. 2) David Warner’s zing bail. Thank god they did not fall. 3) Getting Maxwell in time. I believe the chase could have been easily achieved if Australia did not take us lightly by changing their winning combination against us which won them the series here. They thought they could dish out any team and beat us, bad idea. *_* It is actually Australia who made it difficult for themselves.
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
This time there was no game turner unfortunately! I don’t understand why selectors couldn’t pick a game turner not even in probables probably. Why Warner isn’t playing like a Warner of old or at least like Warner of IPL Khawaja is a proven field restriction specialist. If his boundary percentage drops more than 80 percent, why not take his best service. If he is not opening then it is unfair on middle order specialists like marsh and handscomb, it’s better to rather drop him.
anon
Roar Pro
IMO it's not realistic though to expect your bottom order to blast 120 off 60 to win. Why not put them in a position where it's 150 off 120 (which is still a tricky chase for the mid and bottom order)?
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
History is meant to be rewritten, see last time we beat you in world cup group stage match is possibly in 1999, To be very honest i did not think we would post 352 . In the end all was well ^_^
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Against all other nations (apart from Aus) Kuldeep has an incredible economy rate of about 4.7 runs per over. Maybe drop him for Jadeja if India play Australia again but otherwise Kuldeep is gold.
Paul
Roar Guru
and yet the score book shows a 38 run loss. I'll also guarantee theAussie players will be thinking "if we'd done a few things slightly differently,we could have won that". That doesn't happen if a side gets hammered.
anon
Roar Pro
Of course it's possible. It's just very remote chance to expect your tailenders to average three boundaries per over while your best batsman blocked and pushed it around for 4.5 per over for the first 30. To expect your side to get 12 an over for the last 10 with 5 wickets in hand is pulling off one of the greatest finishes in World Cup history. Hard enough to pull of against Afghanistan or Scotland.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
I believe it is better if we use him only in conditions that suits him. He is not someone who can keep things tight when things are not going his way.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
I am nervous using kuldeep against either of England or West Indies.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
I get your point, but I do not agree with your entire statement. In modern day cricket 115 from 10 is very much possible specially on that track. We got 120 in last 10, you needed 115. It was one Maxwell innings away which was not to be in that particular day . Australia did it in Mohali . You lower order is coming from a fresh rescue effort of 92 from 60 balls. After 5-6 wicket our batting is over. You can use all of your players as slogger. Even zampa can hit maximum. Yet i guess it is hard when bhuvi bowled that good. I believe Australia lost in tactical game , not because of quality. Not to say that it covers for some hole both you and our team need to fix. But i also acknowledge your point of chasing in world cup match,pressure is a factor. Things could have been much safer if your top order could up the run rate.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I wouldn't drop Kuldeep, he often struggles against Australia they are his bogey team. He averages 36 with the ball in ODIs against Aus but about 18 against every other nation combined.